LAST REMINDER BEFORE SUMMER HOLIDAYS

Closing date for submitting objections to Planning Application: I last posted 5th August as the closing date for submissions. This now appears as Wednesday 3rd August on the South Glos Website.
If you want to read any submissions already made, click on this link and browse other objections at your leisure - they are a mine of information, each one revealing new grounds for objecting. Select the best and personalise them into your own letter. If you have missed the deadline, don't worry and send it anyway to PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk
The Planning Inspector has delayed initial pronouncement on soundness of Core Strategy- no doubt there will be some surprises in store this coming autumn.
Happy Summer Holidays.

Debate,! what Debate?? Town Council Meeting 12th July 2011?

Debate,! what Debate?? Town Council Meeting 12^th July 2011?

Councillors attending a specially convened meeting last Tuesday night to debate a planning application by Barratt Developments for 500 houses at Park Farm Thornbury were faced with an angry gallery at the Town Hall, so packed that the usual centre piece committee table had to be removed to create additional space for the public.

The meeting opened with a number of councillors declaring prejudicial interests and subsequently leaving the chamber. Councillor Halsall spoke first and explained that as a governor of the Castle School he had an interest in the development so would have to leave the meeting and not vote. He left the room, followed by Clive Parkinson who also declared an interest as a Castle School Governor. Councillor Parsloe also declared an interest as a Trustee of the Sheiling School. Councillor Costello then declared a personal and prejudicial interest, and made a short statement before leaving. Councillor Davies then declared a personal and prejudicial interest and stated that even though he had been elected to represent the north west ward on this issue he was unable to vote or take part in the debate, which he considered a shame as he was probably more knowledgeable about the application than any other councillor as he had actually read most of the large box of evidence supplied by Barratts in support of the application. He was interrupted by the chairman who told him that statements from the public would be taken before statements by Councillors. He questioned whether he should remain in the room and was told he could and he could ask Councillor Costello to return to the room as the chairman understood he wanted to give a fuller statement too. Councillor Parsloe also returned to the room.

No less than seven residents, including former councillors and two ex-mayors gave detailed statements as to why the planning application should be refused. These included irreversible loss of valuable historical and ecological sites, landscape and conservation area damage, and serious traffic safety issues that would result from the development. It was also pointed out that the original decision to adopt Park Farm was based on the gain that could be achieved for the Castle School and the apparent closeness of the site to the town centre. It is now evident that the Castle School is unlikely to achieve what was originally expected and the walk from the development to the town centre is over 25 minutes. Councillors were asked to consider whether it was appropriate to support the planning application for this site in the light of these changing circumstances.

The chair of Concern for Thornbury also reminded councillors that the longer term visionary plan for development of the town had for many decades been to preserve the assets to the North and West and develop if required to the east which has resulted in Midland Way, Morton Way and its underpass in preparation for possible further growth towards the A38.

Numerous shortcomings and weakness in the information provided by Barratts to assess the suitability of Park Farm were emphasised. Just one example of how the sites important history, heritage and ecology had been undermined were highlighted by a representative of Avon Bat Society who pointed out that Barratts had claimed there had seen no bat activity on or near the site after a survey carried in February 2010 - which was probably accurate as bats hibernate between October and March.

Statements by two Independent Councillors followed. Councillor Vincent Costello, an expert in urban planning, pointed out that there was no need to succumb to this pressure being applied by Barratts and that the town council should recommend that the application should be refused awaiting the outcome of the core strategy deliberations of the planning inspector.

Councillor Davies started by asking how many letters of objection had been received by the council. He was informed that numerous letters had been received, about 29 or 30, which were too numerous to read out, but that no e-mail objections had been received recently as the council’s e-mail facility had been out of order for over a week! Councillor Gareth Davies continued to highlight the theme of misinformation by producing a brochure sent by Barratts to all town councillors prior to the meeting which applauded the benefits this development would bring to Thornbury, none of which could be proven. He spoke strongly against councillors claiming on the one hand that they were “listening” to their electors, and then ignoring the uncomfortable data that such consultations produced – as happened with the original 2008 Thornbury resident’s survey, which indicated that further development was preferred beyond Morton Way, - as happened with the massive objections to the draft Core Strategy, - and as was happening with all the objections focussed on this meeting here today.

In response to all this, Councillor Tyrell read out a statement followed by a ‘proposal’. First she stated the town council could not determine the application; only advise their support or otherwise. Her address then focused on her opinion, which was not changed - more houses were needed to be built in Thornbury. She stated that everyone was well aware of the arguments why Park Farm had been chosen and she was not going to go over those arguments again. Unfortunately, this was not the case – no-one has yet heard a well reasoned and evidence based rationale for building at Park Farm. Yes, the Councillors have made statements, but they have provided no facts and they were reminded at the meeting that the Planning Inspector is critical of both the process and consultation carried out by South Gloucestershire during the formation of the Core Strategy. Councillor Tyrell also inferred that it didn’t matter how many residents objected to their decision – they had the final say on what ‘had merit’ or not and they would judge. This seems to imply that, regardless of what Thornbury residents think, they know best and will decide on things themselves. This is the arrogance now displayed by a group of LibDem Town Councillors who haven’t been challenged for years on their decision making.

Immediately following the conclusion of her statement Councillor Tyrell, instead of referring to the leader of the council to open the debate, then read out the proposal that Thornbury Town Council raises no objections to the application subject to a number of planning conditions. Amongst these was that the bus link onto Park Road was an essential condition, bus services should be subsidised for a minimum of 5 years, a convenience store should be provided, health facilities should include the provision for additional doctors, dentists, therapists and other health staff, There were also a long list of other requirements which are standard for new developments such as “high quality housing”, 35% affordable housing, footpaths and cycle paths should provide good access and should be accessible to disabled people etc. etc.

Following this, there was no debate, or call for debate. The Chairperson did not ask if any other councillor wished to speak or comment or ask questions.

It was obvious that the councillors were unaware of letters from members of the public.There was no attempt to inform the public that e-mails could not be received. Instead of debate the proposal was quickly seconded and voted on to accept and support Barratts application.

It looked suspiciously like agreement had been reached by a group of councillors prior to the meeting and no debate was required as the proposal was to be accepted regardless of counter argument and information being brought forward on the evening. We understand one councillor abstained and the remaining (all liberal Democrats) all voted for the proposal. This appears to show that the councillors had a closed mind set before the meeting started and no amount of information or discussion at the meeting would change the way they had decided (or been told) to vote. This appears to be in breach of the councillors Code of Conduct.

It appears that not only have the Standing Orders been breached but also the meeting itself did not follow proper procedure.

Those of us at the back of the room could not see or hear how many councillors voted.

It should be noted that other than Councillor Tyrell, no words of support for the application were heard from councillors or from members of the public , quite the opposite. At the end of the meeting shouts of 'disgraceful' 'rubbish' 'disgusting' 'debate?? more like stitch up' were heard from the public. Several people registered with STGH their ‘shock’ and ‘speechlessness’ at how the Town Council had conducted this meeting, condemning it as a ‘sham’. Even one councillor who had not spoken at the meeting admitted afterwards that Park Farm was a beautiful part of Thornbury and should not be built on.

[Summary prepared by residents attending the meeting]

DEADLINE EXTENSION

Once again South Glos have extended their deadline for submissions/objections to the Park Farm Planning Application. I believe it now stands at Friday 5th AUGUST - although it is feasible this will be extended yet again. Each time new documentation is added to the application, this triggers a set amount of time that must elapse before the consultation can be closed.
So if you haven't objected yet ..... get writing! (See previous posts for detailed advice on grounds for objection.)

A full account of the shameful Thornbury Town Council endorsement of the application on Tuesday night (12th) will follow this post in the very near future. Apologies for delay - pressures of the day-job and family commitments!

Update Following the Exploratory Meeting by the Planning Inspector

This meeting is meant to be reported on the South Glos website, but at last visit, nothing was yet posted. South Gloucestershire Planners were presented with a legal challenge to the Core Strategy by barristers from Brittell. Apparently South Glos did not follow proper procedures relating to presenting the public with correct information at the timings laid down in statute. We certainly knew things were not right here in Thornbury – no Sustainability Appraisal appeared until May 2010 and then it was only partially completed. In fact we were not given a more complete version until AFTER the consultation period ended! And we can go on.......

The Planning Inspector referred to a legal case recently between ‘Save Historic Newmarket’ and Forest Heath District Council which concluded that the Council’s Core Strategy was flawed because it had not tested it’s ‘strategic’ (preferred) site option adequately against all other reasonable alternatives. We certainly feel this is also the case in Thornbury...

On top of all this, the main reason for Park Farm being the ‘preferred’ option is undoubtedly because of the benefits The Castle School were meant to receive as a result. We have evidence that this is now not going to be realised – so there is no real basis for a Park Farm development anymore. It certainly isn’t the most Sustainable option in terms of accessibility, heritage, landscape or flooding, and anyway, where exactly is all that evidence about needing 500 new homes in Thornbury?

So, the Planning Inspector has 4 choices –

(i) Throw out the Core Strategy due to Unsoundness & resubmit when ready (could be a year or more)

(ii) Suspend/delay the CS for up to 6 months to allow for further work/amendments

(iii) Proceed with the Enquiry in Public, but with some changes to the CS being necessary

(iv) All seems ok to proceed with Enquiry.

The Inspector will make his decision in about 10 days time, meanwhile we are thinking it could be option (ii) which is most likely, although (i) isn’t out of the question!

Meanwhile, it’s worth reading through the current Local Development Framework http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/exeres/5cf44123-5099-4865-87c1-8c9cbc8ffac0 which is what development/planning decisions will be based on until 2012 without a new CS in place.

WHAT IS THE PRIORITY FOR US ALL NOW?

Please send in your objections to the Planning Application for 500 homes on Park Farm by Friday 8^th July

If you check the list of documents already submitted relating to the planning aplication, (CLICK HERE) you will find some samples of letters/objections already made by members of the public (Listed as Consultation Replies). Please try to modify your own statements to give a personal look to them.

(Details of how to do this are in the previous posting) Send to PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk

It is also not too late, if you haven't already, to make an objection to Thornbury Town Council, who have delayed their own decision-making until Tuesday 12th July. Even better, come along to the Town Hall and make your objection in person! You have the right to be heard for up to five minutes.

Objecting to Planning Application

Thornbury Town Council will consider the Park Farm Planning Application at it's meeting on Tuesday evening 21st June. If you plan to object, please do so very soon. You may even wish to a attend the meeting, starting at 7.30pm, and state your objections in person.

But the priority task must be an objection lodged with South Glos Council by Wednesay 6th July. Please follow the simple advice set out below. This list may be revised following the Exploratory Meeting of theIndependent Inspector on 29th June, but don't worry about this - better to object now than to risk missing the boat!

OBJECT TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION NOW BEFORE 6^th JULY

It is really important that we don’t give up at this late stage and that South Gloucestershire Council receive as many objections to the Planning Application for housing development at Park Farm.

The system only counts objections that they consider to have validity. For example, ‘modern houses are ugly’ wouldn’t count whereas citing breaches of existing policy does.

The Council counts objections that read the same as just one objection. This, of course, makes it difficult for the ordinary person to know what to write. To help everyone, we have come up with a list of valid objections that you can choose from. Just copy and paste three or four into your objection, top and tail it with a variation on words and you will have an objection that counts.

You can still be heard so please take the time to e-mail PlanningApplications@southglos.gov.uk or write to South Glos Council

Choose from –

OPENINGS (select one)

I object to the Planning Application PT11/1442/0 for up to 500 dwellings by Barratt Developments on the following grounds -

OR

I wish to register my objection the Planning Application PT11/1442/0 for erection of up to 500 dwellings by Barratt Developments on 26.21 hectares of land at Thornbury.

OR

Objections. Planning Application PT11/1442/0. Barratt Developments. Thornbury.

OBJECTIONS (Select three or four)

• The Planning Application has come forward before there is a policy in place to support it and so the application is premature.
• The Core Strategy has yet to be examined by the Planning Inspector and there are known concerns about the soundness and legality of the identification of Park Farm as a site for development
• The existing Local Plan states that Park Farm is not the most suitable site for development.
• National Planning Policy document PPS1states, “It may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity where development plan is being prepared or under review.” The Core Strategy is under review and so should not be the guiding document whilst an existing local plan is in force.
• The site for development was identified and adopted before a sustainability appraisal was conducted and has significant sustainability drawbacks e.g. distance from town centre, lack of public transport, absence of access roads.
• The consultation process employed to identify Park Farm as a suitable site for development was flawed and undemocratic and has been cited as such by Steve Webb MP, other developers, pressure groups and residents.
• Approving the application would interrupt due process as the Core Strategy that identifies Park Farm for development has yet to go through an independent examination.
• Insufficient verifiable evidence has been provided to show that the proposed development would result in the benefits claimed in the as yet to be adopted Core Strategy i.e. countering an aging population, filling open school places and increasing town centre vibrancy.
• Park Farm is unsuitable as a sustainable site for development due to its distance from the town’s facilities, flood risks and the resulting destruction of a valuable heritage.
• There are material errors in the application e.g. development would not be visible from Thornbury Castle or St Mary’s church and the site is not within a 25 minute walking distance of the town centre.

CLOSING

(select one and add you name and address to the end. You need to sign and print your name underneath your signature if you write by post)

The application is premature, and in any case flawed, and should be rejected.

OR

The council should refuse this application, at least pending the completion of the due process of the examination and adoption of the Core Strategy

OR

The selection of this site for development was the result of poor consultation and it’s sustainability remains subject to challenge by residents, developers and others. The application should be refused for these reasons.

TIME FOR ACTION!

Many of you will have recently received letters through your doors - Notification of Planning Application in relation to Park Farm. It seems as if the moment has come once again to urge you all to rejoin the fight for fair play and honourable decisions for the future of Thornbury with some direct action of your own.
There are little glimmers of what might be construed as hope from the direction of the Independent Planner, relating to the soundness and legality of the Core Strategy that South Glos have produced. (See last Posting.) We have two deadlines fast approaching that need your input if our Town and District Council are going to be convinced that people in Thornbury are serious about objecting to the development at Park Farm. What we need once again is a significant mass of documented public opinion from you supporters out there.

1. Thornbury Town Council will on Tuesday 21st June consider the Planning Application by Barratt Homes to build 500 houses at Park Farm. It is not within their power to grant or withhold that planning permission, only to make a recommendation on behalf of Thornbury Town as to how they would like South Glos Council to proceed. Judging by their past record it is unlikely that TTC will withdraw their support per se for the planning application. However, we believe there may be very good grounds for TTC recommending NOT to accept the planning application at this particular time of asking. Please write to TTC before this deadline to urge the Council to recommend to SGC a refusal of planning permission at this juncture. The following reasons should support your letter:

• This may be standard practice for developers such as Barratt Homes to put forward Planning Applications regardless of whether the Core Strategy has been finalised and signed off by South Glos and the Independent Inspector. However it would be incredibly premature of both Town and District Councils to approve this application. There are legitimate doubts as to the soundness and legality of the Core Strategy. The Independent Inspector has already indicated the need for a preliminary Exploratory Meeting, which is unusual in itself, and the agenda he has drawn up would suggest that Thornbury issues may be uppermost in his thoughts. Why are Barratts attempting to ride roughshod over this due legal process, and force the council's hand? Probably because they are a business concern, and care first and foremost about their own pockets/profitability. Council should not be influenced by such matters or be seen to be in the developer's pocket. It is the developers who should be showing our legal process more respect. Patrick Conroy (Head of Spatial Planning at SGC) wrote to Barratt's as early as last year urging more restraint when Barratts threatened to submit planning applications even before the ink on the DRAFT Core Strategy was dry! Thornbury should not be hurried. As so many residents and other stakeholders have raised concerns over the soundness of the Core Strategy in relation to Thornbury, we urge both councils to withhold approval and allow decisions to date to be tested before recommending any planning application.
  



• The recent local TTC elections were unprecedented in terms of the message NorthWest Thornbury has been sending the Town Council. At his last full Council Meeting as Mayor, the previous incumbent, Mr Chris Clifford, when challenged over TTC's Core Strategy statement, said "Let the ballot box decide". And it did just that by removing from office two ex-mayors, who between them had a vast quantity of years of service to the town - not as a slight on past services, but simply because they had stopped listening to and representing the deeply unhappy voices of local residents. Residents in NWThornbury have been saying for a long time that this is not about "My Back Yard" but about undue process, lack of supporting evidence, meaningless consultation. Thornbury is the only area of South Gloucestershire to have had a site selected for development and a sustainability appraisal conducted AFTER selection - which alone raises issues of soundness. Councillors would do well not to ignore legitimate concerns. We are urging all of Thornbury's Councillors to show that they have listened to concerns and are prepared to defer recommending an application, at least until after the Independent Inspector has taken a view.
  



• Send your letters to: Thornbury Town Council, c/o The Town Clerk, The Town Hall, Thornbury, BS35 2AR, or e-mail directly to: j.payne@thornburytowncouncil.gov.uk before Tuesday 21st June - that gives you 8 days from this posting! If you DON'T live in NWThornbury, you may wish to copy in your own Town Councillor to encourage him/her to get the message, too.
  

2. South Glos Council have given until Wednesday 6th July for individuals to register their own personal response to the Planning Application for Park Farm. (SGC assure us that comments received after this date will still be considered up until Committee sits to consider the application, so it may be wise to wait at least until after the Planning Inspector's Exploratory Meeting on 29th June has shed more light on the situation). All the details of the planning application are available on this website: CLICK HERE. However it will probably overwhelm you with the mass of information contained herein; we hope to consolidate our grounds for objection over the next week or so, including any legal/professional advice we can glean, at which point we will be publishing for your benefit our very best suggestions as to possible lines of opposition. Keep checking this website - if you are on our mailing list, we will e-mail you the details directly. This is the big one. We urge you to find the time to express your views once again.

Planning Inspector requests Exploratory Meeting!

It would appear that all is not well with the South Glos Core Strategy, as many of us have known for a very long time. The Independent Inspector has called for an Exploratory Meeting to undertake a preliminary assessment of the Core Strategy. This is not routine - it is an exceptional procedure when serious concerns become apparent in the Core Strategy. This letter was sent to all Representors who responded to the Core Strategy back in August of 2010. The agenda for the meeting, which will take place on 29th June at 2pm at Nibley Court looks very similar to a list of all the issues we have already found fault with for so long. Is the plot very slowly unravelling for the Core Strategy? Our simple solution for the Inspector has always been

• Exclude Thornbury from the Core Strategy - this is not a strategic housing site for South Glos, and never has been.
• More housing for Thornbury is a local issue for local people to decide.
• Thornbury needs to start again from a blank sheet, and come up with a housing strategy that is based upon evidenced needs, that is sustainable, and that is determined through genuine and open discussion and consultation, by the people and for the people.